5.04 Exhibit index: the European [supplier 2] agreement carries the wrong year, and the calculation linkbase is not listed

Company C · a US-listed specialty healthcare products company · Drafting slip

DraftingLowEstablishedCover page, exhibits, XBRL and other disclosures
Area of the 10-K
Item 15: exhibit index
Year
Both years
Status
Established: Established from the company’s own documents; the requirement is clear.
Who acts
SEC Reporting, General Counsel
When
Next Form 10-K (fiscal 2026)

In brief

Exhibit 10.[n] describes the European license, supply and distribution agreement with [supplier 2] as dated [date], while the notes, the hyperlinked exhibit (filed with the [date] Form 10-K) and the company's [date] current report all date it [date]; the same wrong year was in the 2024 exhibit index. The exhibit index also lists five of the six inline XBRL exhibits filed with the report: the calculation linkbase (Exhibit 101.CAL) was submitted but is not listed, although the company's later quarterly report lists it.

The evidence, as filed

Masked extract: Form 10-K 2025, page 101
Form 10-K 2025, page 101Exhibit 10.[n] gives the agreement date as [date], citing the Form 10-K of [date]
Masked extract: Form 10-K 2025, page 102. Where the disclosure should appear: nothing here
Form 10-K 2025, page 102Where the disclosure should appear: nothing hereWhere the item should appear: The Exhibit 101.CAL line (inline XBRL calculation linkbase), which the EDGAR index shows was filed is not shown here
Masked extract: Form 10-K 2024 (prior year), page 103. The prior-year filing
Form 10-K 2024 (prior year), page 103The prior-year filingPrior year: The 2024 exhibit index carries the same wrong date for the agreement (then numbered [n]) and also lists no calculation linkbase.
Masked extract: Form 10-K 2024 (prior year), page 103
Form 10-K 2024 (prior year), page 103Earlier year: The prior-year exhibit index (exhibit [n]) carried the same date

1 further page extract: screenshot withheld to protect the company’s identity. The rows below say what each shows.

What the filing shows, and what the rule requires

What the filing showsWhat the rule requires

The European [supplier 2] agreement exhibit: 'dated as of [date]'; the inline XBRL exhibit lines: instance, schema, definition, label and presentation documents only.

Exhibit 10.[n]: 'dated as of [date]'; add '[n].CAL Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document'.

What we checked. Exhibit index of the 2025 and 2024 Forms 10-K against the notes, the hyperlinked exhibit, the EDGAR filing index of the 10-K and the first-quarter 2026 Form 10-Q exhibit index.

The rule

Regulation S-K Item 601(a)(2) (exhibit index)

For convenient reference, each exhibit shall be listed in the exhibit index according to the number assigned to it in the exhibit table.

Version: Text in force at the date of this review · Source: Regulation S-K, 17 CFR 229.601 (eCFR, as amended and in force for fiscal 2025)

Why it applies here. the agreement was signed on [date] (notes) and was filed with the Form 10-K dated [date], which is the filing the exhibit index itself cites; a [date] agreement could not have been filed in [date]. the EDGAR index of the 10-K shows an EX-101.CAL calculation linkbase among the data files, and the exhibit index omits it. Neither slip changes any figure; the first was carried forward from the 2024 report.

Why it matters

Cosmetic: a reader following the exhibit index meets a date that conflicts with the notes and with the filing date cited beside it, and one filed exhibit is not listed.

Exposure

No consequence beyond correction in the next exhibit index.

Management’s best defense, and our reply

Management would say both are clerical: the hyperlink takes the reader to the right agreement, the notes give the right date, and the calculation linkbase is part of the interactive data file that Exhibit 101 covers as a whole. That is right on substance, which is why the point is only a drafting slip; the date has nonetheless been wrong in two consecutive reports.

The fix

  1. Change Exhibit 10.[n] to 'dated as of [date]' and add the line '[n].CAL* Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document. X'.

Evidence relied on

#What it showsTypeWhere
1Exhibit 10.[n] gives the agreement date as [date], citing the Form 10-K of [date]DocumentForm 10-K 2025, page 101
2The notes date the [supplier 2] Europe agreement [date]DocumentForm 10-K 2025, page 71
3The [date] current report on the amendment confirms the 2023 dateDocument
4The XBRL exhibits listed end with the presentation linkbase and Exhibit 104DocumentForm 10-K 2025, page 102
5The first-quarter 2026 Form 10-Q does list the calculation linkbaseDocument
6Exhibit index row [n] gives [date]DocumentForm 10-K 2025, page 101
7The notes date the agreement [date]DocumentForm 10-K 2025, page 71
8Item 1 also dates it [date]DocumentForm 10-K 2025, page 7

Absence check

Document
Form 10-K 2025
Where it would appear
[n].INS*
What is missing
The Exhibit 101.CAL line (inline XBRL calculation linkbase), which the EDGAR index shows was filed
Pages looked at
p.100-102 (exhibit index)
Result
'[n].CAL' and 'Calculation Linkbase' have no hits. 'calculation' hits p.61 (critical audit matter on the fair value calculation) and p.77 (income tax calculations): neither is an exhibit listing.

Prepared by Pramanex from the company’s public SEC filings, without the company’s involvement, to show how a 10-K Pre-filing Check reads. The company is not named, and nothing on this page is a statement about any identifiable company. Observations are not an audit, review or other attestation or assurance engagement, and not legal advice. An SEC-style question is a question, not a conclusion.

Want this on your own 10-K, before you file?

Start with three free findings on your latest 10-K, or book a fixed-price 10-K Pre-filing Check.

Your next 10-K will be in draft before the audit is done.
Have it read before you file.

Start with three free findings on your latest 10-K, or book a fixed-price 10-K check. Drafts only under NDA, inside your insider trading policy.